• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

3rd Session, 37th Parliament REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS Victoria Thursday, May 30, 2002 Issue No. 7 BARRY PENNER, MLA, CHAIR ISSN 1703-2474 Published under the authority of the Speaker Internet: www.legis.gov.bc.ca/cmt SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS Victoria Thursday, May 30, 2002 Chair: * Barry Penner (Chilliwack-Kent L) Deputy Chair: * Patty Sahota (Burnaby-Edmonds L) Members: * Bill Bennett (East Kootenay L) * Jeff Bray (Victoria–Beacon Hill L) * Ida Chong (Oak Bay–Gordon Head L) * Walt Cobb (Cariboo South L) * John Les (Chilliwack-Sumas L) Paul Nettleton (Prince George–Omineca L) * Joy MacPhail (Vancouver-Hastings NDP) * denotes member present Clerks: Craig James Committee Staff: Josie Schofield (Committee Research Analyst) CONTENTS Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills Thursday, May 30, 2002 Page Adoption of Agenda ....................................................................................................................................................................39 Premature Disclosure of Committee Report.............................................................................................................................39 Committee Report ........................................................................................................................................................................42 MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS Thursday, May 30, 2002 8:30 a.m. Douglas Fir Committee Room Parliament Buildings, Victoria Premature disclosure of committee report Present: Barry Penner, MLA (Chair); Patty Sahota, MLA (Deputy Chair); John Les, MLA; Ida Chong, MLA; Bill Bennett, MLA; Walt Cobb, MLA; Jeff Bray, MLA; Joy MacPhail, MLA Unavoidably Absent: Paul Nettleton, MLA 1. The Committee was advised that Ms. Jenny Kwan, MLA would not be present as a witness at today’s meeting. 2. The Committee considered written responses by Ms. Jenny Kwan, MLA to questions asked by the Committee in relation to the premature disclosure of a committee report. 3. Ms. MacPhail, MLA made a statement regarding the process embarked upon by the Committee in the discharge of its terms of reference. 4. The Committee considered a draft report to the House in camera. 5. The Committee amended its draft report. 6. The Committee met in public to adopt its report to the House. 7. It was moved by Mr. Les that, The Committee adopt the Report as its Third Report to the House, as amended. A debate arising and the question being put it was agreed to on the following recorded division: Yeas(5) Nays (1) Chong MacPhail Bennett Les Sahota Bray 8. The Chair was instructed to present the Committee’s report on the matter of a premature disclosure of a commit- tee report to the House as soon as possible. 9. The Committee adjourned at 9:36 a.m. to the call of the Chair. Barry Penner, MLA Craig James Chair Clerk of Committees and Clerk Assistant 39 THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 was seeking advice on that point. Once that decision was taken, the draft report in question was set aside. The committee met at 8:35 a.m. Not once throughout this process or at any time in the Legislature is there any evidence that Ms. Kwan [B. Penner in the chair.] sought to have the report released publicly. Indeed, Jim Beatty, a reporter of the Vancouver Sun, reported that B. Penner (Chair): Good morning, everyone. I'd she refused to share the report with the media. There is like to call the committee to order. It's now 8:35 a.m. no evidence that Ms. Kwan had any intent to use the draft report to interfere with the proceedings of the Adoption of Agenda committee in question. I'm pleased that all members have received a copy B. Penner (Chair): Item No. 1. We have the issue of of her submission and have read it. I hope they have adoption of the draft agenda, which has been circu- read carefully all of the materials provided to the lated. Do I have a motion to adopt the agenda? Motion committee, because these are the kinds of cases that by John Les. have been provided to us where a breach of privilege and contempt have been found in the past. We need to Meeting agenda approved. compare those cases with Ms. Kwan's circumstances. I would point out to government members that Premature Disclosure of perhaps they should also read carefully the case re- Committee Report garding Mr. Ernie Ross. That case deals with a gov- ernment MP in Britain. B. Penner (Chair): Item No. 2 on the agenda. Con- Indeed, contempt has been found where a govern- sideration of written response by Ms. Jenny Kwan, ment member shared a draft report with, oh, let's say, the dated May 29, 2002, to questions raised by the commit- equivalent of Martyn Brown in this government, prior to tee at our last meeting. I see Ms. MacPhail has her hand its release — perhaps a twist on the kind of warning that up. the government might be trying to send to its own mem- bers by convening this very suspect, I would say, kanga- J. MacPhail: Yes, Mr. Chair. I'm going to take a few roo court. That case is extremely instructive. moments — probably about ten minutes — to speak to Nowhere is there evidence that Ms. Kwan sought to this issue. obstruct or intimidate the committee. Indeed, there is Ms. Kwan isn't here, because it would be quite a no evidence that Ms. Kwan was the definitive source of surprise if the entire opposition caucus devoted their the material that Mr. Chudnovsky released to the me- energies to this exercise when there are important mat- dia. This, I would argue, is key to the conclusions we ters happening in the House at 10 a.m. We have di- might come to here. I'll come back to that point later in vided up our responsibilities, and because I am a my remarks. member of this committee, Ms. Kwan is being given [0840] the assignment to prepare for the Legislature at 10 a.m. First, I'm going to highlight some of the points of I'll proceed. It'll take about ten minutes. Ms. Kwan's submission that struck me as particularly important to consider. I'm going to quote directly from B. Penner (Chair): Go ahead, but I'd just like to her submission those parts, if I may, that are instruc- indicate for the record that I believe that all members of tive. I speak first to paragraph 12, which reads: "This the committee have received copies of the submission. type of inadvertent public disclosure arising from the Is that correct? regular confidential work of a member of the Legisla- I don't see anybody indicating otherwise. I will tive Assembly was specifically excluded from the cate- presume all members have seen and, hopefully, read gories of 'serious' cases for which some penalty might the submission. Please proceed. be appropriate, by the British House of Commons committee of privileges in its second report of 1984-85." J. MacPhail: Thank you very much, Chair. I have a copy of that report for committee members. Of course, the Chair is referring to the submission Let me quote from the report. "The House should that Jenny Kwan made in writing to the questions exercise its penal jurisdiction (1) as sparingly as possi- raised by committee members at the meeting of May ble and (2) only when satisfied that it was essential to 28, I think it was. do so in order to provide reasonable protection for the I've prepared written remarks to keep on track. Ms. House and its officers from obstruction or threats of Kwan's submission is full and frank. It lays out in de- obstruction causing or likely to cause substantial inter- tail answers to each of the three questions raised by the ference with the performance of their functions." committee on May 28. She makes clear that she shared Also cited in that report is Parliamentary Practice in the draft with a limited number of people and that the British Columbia, by the Clerk of the House, Mr. Mac- material was shared with the understanding that it was Minn. That's at page 51. to be on a strictly confidential basis. The report from the British House of Commons She was seeking their advice on the matter of continues: should her minority report be framed within the con- "One probable source of some leaks is inadvertent text of the draft report, or should it stand alone. She disclosure by a member. Some members naturally 40 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 discuss the work of their committees with other [0845] members, with their own staff or with others who may Where is the evidence that Jenny Kwan actually have relevant advice or experience, without intending was the source of the material that Mr. Chudnovsky publication, but others may not have the appropriate used in his speech? Where is the smoking gun, as it respect for information of this kind, that they have been given in confidence, and published leaks result." were? The only indication that we have that she might The committee distinguished these inadvertent have been the source is her apology itself, and yet this leaks from the intentional type of leaks of primary con- committee is proceeding to railroad Jenny Kwan based cern, which are described in the report as follows: "But solely upon an apology that some of those very mem- it is clear from the evidence and from the nature of bers have characterized as not being definitive. many leaks that the majority of them, especially the Well, you can't suck and blow on this one. It would more serious disclosures of the contents of draft re- have to be a pretty rock-solid apology if it gave you ports, are the deliberate work of members of commit- enough evidence to find her in contempt — "you" be- tees acting for political or personal motives." ing the committee members other than me.

Load more

  12

Copy Link